Subject: [NNTP] Chair writeup for draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:56:04 -0700

| a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
|    Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
|    to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes, following an IETF Last Call.

| b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
|    and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
|    depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Yes.  The document or pointers to the document have been posted several
times to news.software.nntp and have received comments and review from
many NNTP software authors.  Several NNTP software authors, including
myself, have reviewed the document for divergence from existing practice
and to ensure that its provisions are implementable and reasonable.

| c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
|    particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
|    complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No.

| d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
|    you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
|    example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
|    document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
|    it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
|    and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
|    document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

No.

| e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
|    represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
|    others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
|    agree with it?

I believe the WG consensus behind this document is completely solid.  This
was the simplest and least controversial of all of our documents.

| f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
|    discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
|    separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

No.

| g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
|    ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

I have reviewed the document against the ID checklist.

There is one reference in the Abstract that isn't fully explained (the
[NNTP-COMMON] reference to RFC 2980.  I will ask the document editor to
rephrase that reference to specify that it is referring to RFC 2980.

| h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
|    Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
|    also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
|    (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
|    normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
|    such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

Yes, the references are split.  This document has a normative reference to
the base NNTP specification (draft-ietf-nntpext-base-*) and should not be
published until that document has been published.

| j) Please provide such a write-up.  Recent examples can be found in
|    the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents.

Technical Summary

   This memo defines an extension to the Network News Transport Protocol
   to provide asynchronous (otherwise known as "streaming") transfer of
   articles.  This allows servers to transfer articles to other servers
   with much greater efficiency.

   RFC 2980 summarizes some ad-hoc transport extensions currently used in
   the NNTP protocol.  This document updates and formalizes the CHECK and
   TAKETHIS commands and deprecates the MODE STREAM command.

Working Group Summary

   The NNTPEXT WG achieved consensus on this document.

Protocol Quality

   This protocol was previously described in RFC 2980 in a less formal
   form.  Using the deprecated MODE STREAM negotiation command rather than
   the new CAPABILITIES command, it is widely implemented in existing NNTP
   software, including specifically INN, Diablo, and Cyclone, and those
   implementations are known to interoperate.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>